November 29, 2010

In outline, The King’s Speech sounds like a Wayans Brothers spoof (Oscar Movie) of a Weinstein Brothers prestige film: the King of England, a victim of society’s prejudice against stutterers, is empowered by an impudent immigrant therapist to overcome his stiff upper lip just in time to rouse his countrymen to defeat Hitler.

Veteran TV-movie screenwriter David Seidler (who finally has written a cinema hit at age 73) is aware that overcoming one’s fear of public speaking isn’t an exceptionally edifying Triumph of the Human Spirit story, but it’s something with which almost everybody can identify. The British Royal Family remains of broad interest because it plays out on a grand stage such human-scale dramas as speech impediments and engagements.

The King’s Speech illustrates G. K. Chesterton’s 1905 insight that hereditary kingship is “in essence and sentiment democratic because it chooses from mankind at random. If it does not declare that every man may rule, it declares the next most democratic thing; it declares that any man may rule.”

22 comments:

Anonymous
said...

OT, but where have I heard this reasoning before? From Matt Taibbi:

"It’s funny, my father’s a journalist; I grew up around journalists. When I was a kid, there had been a culture change in our business. Way back in the day, I think journalists were mostly working-class guys. A lot of them didn’t go to college; they either worked hard as paper boys or at a printer or something like that. A classic example is a guy like Seymour Hirsch, who was a career newspaperman. That’s where he started. It was a trade, not a profession. I think after All the President’s Men, journalism became sexy. By the time I was on the campaign trail, most of the people who were on the plane following the candidates around were Ivy League people. And they mean well, but they’re mostly turned on by proximity to power, and they like to have this insider status. That notion of being outsiders who police people in power has disappeared from the profession in general. It’s a subtle thing, but it definitely showed up in this crisis where class was such an unspoken issue."

"...in getting the king to unburden his resentment of his starchy upbringing."

In real life I've never seen anyone resent his or her "starchy" upbringing. Loose, careless upbringing is of course resented all the time. People complain about broken families, alcoholic parents, etc. without stop.

But in movies and on TV characters complain about the opposite, Can't have too many "starchy" families out there. I'm guessing that deep down it all comes down to envy. I bet that movie's screenwriter would have given the world to have grown up in a "starchy" family himself.

An interesting review, disfigured by the prejudiced comment at the end: "The Greek and Turkish maids who have to mop up after 21st-century British louts on binge-drinking beach holidays might testify that they have already gotten that message."

That's based largely on tabloid scare stories. See Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7231/, for example, for detailed rebuttal).

"In 2006, Latvian MEP Oscars Kastens branded those catching cheap flights to Riga from Liverpool John Lennon Airport as ‘savages’. ‘I’m welcoming people coming to visit my country’, he said, ‘but not just for stag parties’ (2). In 2008 Latvia interior minister saw fit to call Brits a ‘dirty, hoggish people’ (3). The occasion for this slight was the decision of a British tourist to empty his bladder on Riga’s freedom monument, erected as a tribute to those who fought and died for Latvian independence in 1918-20. ‘These people think it is a tradition to mar our monument. They are pigs, those British. A piggy nation’, the Latvian minister said. This week a spokesperson for the mayor continued: ‘The most popular thing [for British stag parties] was using our monument of liberty as a toilet.’ (4)

While not wishing to defend an act of insensitive urination, one also wonders if such behaviour is really a tradition amongst stag-doing Brits. In May 2007 a British man was indeed arrested for peeing near the monument (5). By February 2008, four more Brits had been arrested for a similar offence. So, in the course of 10 months, five Brits, possibly on stag dos, possibly not, had been arrested for weeing near the freedom monument. That’s right, five. Not 500. Not 50. Five. When you consider that over the course of a year over 100,000 Brits visit Latvia, the vast majority to Riga, that is a pretty insignificant figure.".

See also http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/6754/:

"According to the UK Foreign Office’s British Behaviour Abroad: Annual Report 2008, three million British tourists visited Greece between April 2006 and March 2007 and there were a total of… 230 arrests!"

An interesting review, disfigured by the prejudiced comment at the end: "The Greek and Turkish maids who have to mop up after 21st-century British louts on binge-drinking beach holidays might testify that they have already gotten that message."

That's based largely on tabloid scare stories. See Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7231/, for example, for detailed rebuttal).

"In 2006, Latvian MEP Oscars Kastens branded those catching cheap flights to Riga from Liverpool John Lennon Airport as ‘savages’. ‘I’m welcoming people coming to visit my country’, he said, ‘but not just for stag parties’ (2). In 2008 Latvia interior minister saw fit to call Brits a ‘dirty, hoggish people’ (3). The occasion for this slight was the decision of a British tourist to empty his bladder on Riga’s freedom monument, erected as a tribute to those who fought and died for Latvian independence in 1918-20. ‘These people think it is a tradition to mar our monument. They are pigs, those British. A piggy nation’, the Latvian minister said. This week a spokesperson for the mayor continued: ‘The most popular thing [for British stag parties] was using our monument of liberty as a toilet.’ (4)

While not wishing to defend an act of insensitive urination, one also wonders if such behaviour is really a tradition amongst stag-doing Brits. In May 2007 a British man was indeed arrested for peeing near the monument (5). By February 2008, four more Brits had been arrested for a similar offence. So, in the course of 10 months, five Brits, possibly on stag dos, possibly not, had been arrested for weeing near the freedom monument. That’s right, five. Not 500. Not 50. Five. When you consider that over the course of a year over 100,000 Brits visit Latvia, the vast majority to Riga, that is a pretty insignificant figure.".

See also http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/6754/:

"According to the UK Foreign Office’s British Behaviour Abroad: Annual Report 2008, three million British tourists visited Greece between April 2006 and March 2007 and there were a total of… 230 arrests!"

I tried to comment on the rather prejudiced remark at the end about 'drunken Brits', but couldn't (summary: it's not backed up by the facts). Steve - please do some research before firing off these random missiles at your friends.

" Loose, careless upbringing is of course resented all the time. People complain about broken families, alcoholic parents, etc. without stop."

But of course. Loose, careless upbringing (which is really letting children bring themselves up in a chaotic, non-supportive environment) is resented all the time because the ill-effects can and often do last a lifetime. People shouldn't complain about it all the time, though. Adopting the "starchy" habit of keeping a stiff upper lip is actually very healthy as well as being more attractive.

"I had 'starchy' (haute-WASP) upbringing, and while the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, there are definite disadvantages. An unshakable feeling of 'starchiness', for one."

Consider yourself lucky. The only advantage to a loose, careless upbringing is that later crises don't come as such a shock since one is already so used to life lived on the cusp of disaster. An unshakable feeling of being excluded from any of the healthy aspects of family life is, I suspect, a far greater disadvantage than any persistent feeling of "starchiness".

"The King’s Speech illustrates G. K. Chesterton’s 1905 insight that hereditary kingship is “in essence and sentiment democratic because it chooses from mankind at random. If it does not declare that every man may rule, it declares the next most democratic thing; it declares that any man may rule.”"

G.K. Chesterton said a lot of silly things, this is perhaps one of the silliest. He had a gift for abusing language in a manner that seems clever, provided you don't actually think about what he is actually saying.

When people say "random" in this context, they mean "random" in the sense that one becomes rich by winning the lottery, not "random" in the sense that someone becomes rich by being born into wealth.

Similarly no one speaks of Monarchy as rule by someone selected at random; they all mean Monarchy as rule by someone born into the position, someone who inherited the position. That's not random in this context, and GKC knows it; he's simply abusing the context to subvert the plain meaning of the language.

Kingship in essence and sentiment is anti-democratic, precisely because not just any man may rule. GKC knows this; he is being deliberately deceptive via "paradox" which is the same damn parlor trick he uses over and over. I'm surprised at how many people are impressed by this one trick pony.

"Kingship in essence and sentiment is anti-democratic, precisely because not just any man may rule. GKC knows this; he is being deliberately deceptive via "paradox" which is the same damn parlor trick he uses over and over. I'm surprised at how many people are impressed by this one trick pony."

I'm surprised that anyone could be surprised that so many people are impressed by the prince of paradox. Chesterton is a joy to read even when he makes a silly point. No one in the history of the English language has blended prose and poetry so beautifully.

I'll count myself as an Anglophile, but the Brits have developed a yobbish reputation while abroad. Whether it is being arrested for sex on the beach in Dubai, or non-criminal offenses (drunkenness, loutish behavior, general rudeness), I'd hesitate to call Steve out on this. One crime stat and a small anecdote isn't enough to dispel a stereotype. Given the crime stats at home in Britain, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the Brits aren't stifling too many urges.

To take this in a completely different direction, what on earth are you going on about when you say HBC is finally unshackled from Tim Burton? She's got over 60 titles, just five of them are Burton films (although I assume she'll be in Dark Shadows). She was part of the Merchant Ivory repertory, is a secondary villain in Harry Potter, and has been in a ton of different films. She's about as much linked to TB as Kate Winslette is linked to Sam Mendes--that is, she does stuff for hubby, but has a huge career outside of his work.

"Similarly no one speaks of Monarchy as rule by someone selected at random; they all mean Monarchy as rule by someone born into the position, someone who inherited the position. That's not random in this context, and GKC knows it; he's simply abusing the context to subvert the plain meaning of the language."

It seems pretty clear Chesterton was making a different point: put more precisely (but far less elegantly): hereditary kingship is 'in essence and sentiment democratic because it chooses men of random gifts'. In other words, unlike the president of the Royal Society, who's always going to be a high-IQ egghead, the next king could end up being an average bloke like you when it comes to his abilities. Maybe he'll even end up being a stutterer.

"I tried to comment on the rather prejudiced remark at the end about 'drunken Brits', but couldn't (summary: it's not backed up by the facts). Steve - please do some research before firing off these random missiles at your friends."

Yes, he should have aimed at the commenters in The Grauniad. I don't think Steve, or pretty much any other American, has any friends there.

Speaking of prejudiced remarks not backed up by facts, not all Americans support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not all white Americans are on the verge of declaring a race war against people of color and not all Americans were tickled when Obama repeatedly insulted the English, their queen, their PM and the memory of Churchhill.

But you'd never guess that from reading the comments at you-know-where.

"In real life I've never seen anyone resent his or her "starchy" upbringing. Loose, careless upbringing is of course resented all the time. People complain about broken families, alcoholic parents, etc. without stop. "

Good lord. What makes you think the opposite of "starchy" is a broken family? I loved my non-starchy (and certainly non-broken) upbringing. Yes, our house was loud and somewhat rowdy, but I wouldn't trade any of my eccentric relatives for the world. I loved going to family reunions in which over 100 people often showed up. "Starchy" families don't have the same sense of warmth, sincerity, or support. I've seen this firsthand... my boyfriend's family probably fits the definition of "starchy" (or at least what I believe you all mean by it...) and he seems to prefer the atmosphere at my house. Aren't many laughs in his.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.